What is the last safe prejudice? Against what, or whom, is it still reasonable
to harbour an irrational dislike? Is there any area where the expression of
an opinion isn’t at risk of becoming a judgmental fatwa likely
to damn you for ever as an intolerant bigot? Well, I’m not ashamed to say
that I travel through life carrying a barrel-load of prejudices. I harbour
more perverse and irrational dislikes than Alf Garnett, Lady Bracknell and
the Grand Lizard of the Ole Alabama Chapter of the Ku Klux Klan put
together. In no particular order, I entertain a completely unreasonable
antipathy towards BMW X5s, eggnog lattes, Stephen Poliakoff dramas,
shearling coats, leather trousers, cheese with fruit in it, meat served with
fruit, any and all tanning products, all male jewellery, all body piercing,
tattoos other than on grizzled old salts, house plants, motor sports,
especially Formula One, polo, multistorey car parks, postwar jazz,
home-improvement programmes, Michael Moore, the Principality of Monaco,
radicchio, Radio 4’s Saturday Live, themed pubs, socks made
with anything other than wool, calls to modernise the Royal Family, Richard
Dawkins, people who post fantastically reactionary and offensive comments on
blogs denouncing politicians for sell-out centrist cowardice and then refuse
to use their real names, scented candles and patterned underwear for men.
But while all these features of modern life provoke in me feelings somewhere
between disquiet and dislike, there’s really only one contemporary
phenomenon that drives me to a state of foam-flecked, spittle-spattered
fury. My most profound prejudice is against the corruption of English by the
invasion of a particular new set of words. Some of these words are entirely
fresh coinages, others just novel deployments of old language. But what
unites all these words is the preening self-regard their use now conveys.
They are the linguistic equivalent of Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice
or Boycie in Only Fools and Horses – they combine pretension,
effrontery and vulgarity in perfect balance.
The word that comes top of my hatelist is “source”, as in “Nigella sources all
her cranberries from organic farm shops”, or “Mario sourced all the pieces
for the shoot at vintage stores in his native Co Durham” or “We source all
the ingredients for your Thai seawood spa-wrap and Tibetan chin massage from
local suppliers”. What’s wrong with saying buy? Is it too drearily
commercial to say you actually bought the damn things? And if you are indeed
so opposed to the intrusion of shabby commercialism into your creative
enterprise, why are you charging so bloody much for everything yourself?
Take my word for it (and my word in this particular case is “fleece”): when
you are being sold anything that has been “sourced” or has ingredients that
have been “sourced”, what you are really being sold is a pup. The word is
intended to convey some painstaking process, as arduous as a Victorian
explorer’s transcontinental trek (we’ve found the source of the Blue Nile!)
and it is therefore deployed when the seller wants to suggest that his
product (sourced exclusively from grass-fed Dutch designers) can have been
found only after the exercise of remarkable care and attention. When faced
with anything that has been “sourced”, just say no. And remember: any piece
of clothing that is called a “piece”, as in “my favourite piece this season
is a Xan DeWildebeeste pea coat” is, also, automatically going to be
overpriced. Ditto anything “vintage”. The word is secondhand, dear. And just
because Cheval Blanc improves with age – so that a 1988 vintage is perfect
now – the same doesn’t hold for leggings.
Next on my list is “gallerist”. To those of you yet to come across it, all I
can say is, lucky you. Gallerist is a new coinage for what you or I would
once have called an “art dealer”. I’ve nothing against art dealing per se –
while it’s not a profession that yet seems to have as many state-school
entrants as, say, the Irish peerage or White’s Club, we need art dealers if
we’re to generate and sustain interest in new artistic endeavour. But the
way in which, none-too-subtly, dealers have been rebadged as “gallerists”
is, like the use of “sourced”, just another way of cloaking commercial
activity in language designed to suggest there’s something deeper and more
noble going on. The gallerist is meant to be seen as another part of the
creative process, someone as involved in framing the concept on show as the
original artist. And indeed with much modern conceptual art, where it is
shown matters almost as much as any of the effort that’s gone into creating
something new. In that sense the gallerist (“I have put you on next to Jake
and Dinos in a show called The New Erotic Neuroticism”) could perhaps
be seen as a creative spirit. Or you could equally see that conceptual art
is just one giant exercise in commercialism.
Talking of all this commercial activity brings my next hate: “going forward”.
As in: “We hope to increase growth figures in quarter four and, going
forward, take advantage of the emerging markets of North Korea and Somalia.”
Or: “We have already begun rolling out our new personal toe-care pilots and,
going forward, we hope to have targeted nail-cutting for all those whose
needs in this area were neglected in the Tory years.” Why can’t people just
say “in the future”, or even just “next”. Why do businessmen and politicians
think that using management-speak jargon instils confidence? We all now know
that people using this sort of language a) don’t know what they’re talking
about, b) are trying to bamboozle us by hiding behind technical terms or
buzzwords intended to connote mastery of modern trends, and c) have long ago
lost touch with what it’s like to talk about their work in human terms.
Going forward, can we have zero tolerance for this paradigm shift? And can
we source all our words with a little more care?
Let’s drink (and eat) to happiness
I was intrigued by research last week which shows that life becomes ever more
depressing after your twenties, until you reach a nadir at 44, before
recovering your joie de vivre at 70. The findings chime with my
General Theory of Happiness, which I think reflects the circumstances in
which you can enjoy contentment. It all comes down to lunch.
It was, I think, Keith Waterhouse who said the most depressing words were:
“Shall we go straight in?” And he was on to something. People who have a
proper lunch, prefaced by a libation to the Gods of the Table and
accompanied by something cheering from sunnier climates (and no, I don’t
mean olive oil), are generally the happiest I know. I remember in my
twenties the sheer fun of a couple of pints or a bottle of red at lunch. And
I look on in envy now at those, more advanced in years, who settle in with a
brimming carafe for a good session at the trencher while I power through my
Perrier and hurry on to an afternoon of tragically clear-headed labour. They
are suffused with a daily draught of happiness that now eludes me. It’s not
the drink itself that does the cheering-up, though it helps; it’s the
knowledge that one has the leisure, and freedom from imminent
responsibility, to cut loose around lunchtime which is, I think, the
generator of happiness. So roll on retirement and the comfort of the corner
table, a bottle of mein host’s best and the happiness that £11.95 can still
buy.
Split personalities
The big conundrum at present is what makes people split over Hillary v Barack.
Daniel Finkelstein, for example, is Obama-positive, while David Aaronovitch
is a Clintonista. They’re both centrist on domestic issues and hawkish on
foreign affairs, and Danny is no neophiliac (his first choice would be John
McCain). Yet they’re split. As are Mrs G and I. I have a soft spot for Hill,
she goes gooey for Barack. Labour acquaintances are similarly divided. Why?
Is it Macs v PCs? Or something subtler?
I wish Michael Gove would have a go at the people who use 'myself' as the subject of a sentence.
Anna MacFarlan, Ramsgate, Kent
While Gove’s argument is well written, witty and sarcastic, I can’t help but disagree with it. More a puerile rant than a carefully considered analysis of language use in today’s society, it is an incoherent expression of a personal vendetta against language change.
Surely it is a necessity for language to progress and evolve in line with society? If these new words are becoming popular, this suggests that the majority of society is embracing and accepting the change. Society is the only judge of language, we ourselves dictate whether a word or phrase is successful or not. Majority, I’m afraid, rules.
Controlling our language prevents us from speaking our minds, and telling others our opinions, which you do oh so well in your editorial. For self expression to remain coherent and viable, then we must embrace these additions to our ever growing language. To police our language is to police our right to free speech, and this would be a truly sorry state of affairs.
Matthew Coleman, Kettering, Northants, United Kingdom
Re your article of the 19th February 2008, ‘Look back proudly’. ‘1940: Britain standing alone, facing a fortified Europe: army, navy and airforce badly depleted both in men and materiel, incoming aid and food problematic with sea and air attacks on shipping, our only hope Winston Churchill. It truly was OUR FINEST HOUR and I am proud to have been through it’
daphne hornsby, london, UK
Original response to one of the major issues within society today (yeah right!), sarcasm or use of satire can be identified as the lowest form of humour ‘wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own’-Jonathan Swift; it seems easier today to criticise that which is not normal to one’s self, than find flaws in our beings.Although arguably witty the editorial is narrow minded, inconsistent, has typical chauvinism, gets carried away like a tremendous train speeding through the West with Cowboys and Indians wearing paper hats and streamers thrown into the equation ,and is… silly.An excellent example of the uncultured and intolerant prescriptivist dogs putting down any potential for change.It was once said the children are our future, with editorials like this limiting their self expression we may as well send them back with their tails between their legs and put creativity down to rest.“Creativity, on behalf of mankind may you Rest In Peace!â€
BWCTC, CWA's student
Daniel Lamba, Kettering, Northamptonshire
Gove's article is an amusing example of effective editorial writing. I believe his argument is ironically justified through the unconventional grammar and the bold, mock resentful tone. In my opinion, satire is the most enjoyable of styles to read.
Personally, I really do despise the so called phenomenon of 'ghetto talk' i.e. afro-caribbean colloquialisms and slang terms adopted by white youths to imitate 'gangsta' culture. Such speech I cynically associate with the chav stereotype and such problems such as educational delinquancy. I acknowledge that the youth sociolect naturally uses slang to have an innovativative quality in their language and I will willing admit to using Americanism in my own speech. However, such 'ghetto talk' appears to reflect a flock mentality rather than asserting an independent identity through a unique, personal idiolect.
Claire Milligan, student of CWA, Year 13 English Language, Brooke Weston CTC
Claire MIilligan, Kettering, England
Amazingly well written and interesting. I agree with your sentiments exactly, I'm fed up of people hedging around a subject by using stupid jargon and buzzwords instead of saying simply what they mean.
Of course people can still articulate themselves in different manners, and some may have a more simple vocabulary than others, but this does not bring forth a need to coin new terms for things we already have words for.
A particular irritation of mine is when people seem to feel the need to shorten words, as if they are in dire need of communicating their message. For example 'blates' instead of 'blatantly' is one of the more annoying such words. It is a pity that most of the people in the area I live seem to choose to speak this way.
This article is an excellent example of an editorial, and has proved to be very useful in our English Language A Level course. Its satirical style is most enjoyable, and it is extremely interesting to analyse. I look forward to reading more from you.
Josh Marlow, Rothwell, Northants., United Kingdom.
A very witty editorial, thank you. I shall be asking my students to read and respond to it in their English Language lesson this week.
CWA, Kettering, Northants
"Going forwards" appears to be yesterdays phrase in oz - haven't heard it for a while. Space and piece (again but worse) seem to be the latest fads in business language ie. "I think there is a piece in the life assurance space" means "I think we could use this idea in the life assurance market". Kevin Mcleod would be horrified
tom, Sydney,
My bete noir is 'Human Resources', written always in capitals to make themselves feel important. When I started working I was a Person, able to turn to the Personnel Dept when needed. Some years ago I discovered that my employers no longer consider me a Person but a Human Resource as queries to that same extension, now answered "HR and OD", end unhelpfully with "you'll have to ask your manager". In other words, we're interested in Human Resources only in as much as they affect Organisational Development. So go away. As a Human Resource I feel as important to the Organisation as the Metal Resource I keep my files in and the Wooden Resource my computer sits on. Yet I'm a senior clinician working for an NHS Foundation Trust, in thrall to an Organisation that we feel doesn't value staff and is run by non- or ex-clinicians at management level. Their only focus is on ticking (this year's) boxes to gain points - points mean prizes. If clinicians aren't valued, where does that leave patients?
Rita, Manchester,
In his recent controversial lecture the Archbishop of Canterbury used the work 'unclarity' How ugly! I've not heard it used before - 'lack of clarity' rolls off the tongue. Neither has it reached such dictionaries as I have consulted. Will this catch on? I hope not!
David Barfoot, Silverdale, Lancs
My irritant is 'GOT' ! This is being used more and more by people who you expect to speak English, after they have abbreviated 'HAVE'. Both mean you are in possession of something, but not how it was aquired, making the latter superfluous.
Arthur Marson, Huddersfield, West Yorks.
Personally I loathe the way that "liberal" now means left-wing. If one has traditionally liberal views one is now forced to call oneself a "libertarian" which has connotations of being a rabid gun-toting survivalist .
Steve, London,
And what's the deal with "read" as a noun, as in "The latest Oprah's Book Club selection is a great read." Gah.
Kris, Lansing, Michigan USA
How about 'he was sat here' and 'bring it on'
dan , london,
Obama v Clinton
On policy in general, both candidates ostensibly claim similarity in order to appeal to the centre ground. However, their beliefs and visions for the future, and specifically the way in which they will go about securing their respective visions, subtly polarises them in the eyes of voters.
Voting for Hillary can be seen as voting for incremental change; another political dynasty, and more aggressive reactionary politics. Hillary will have learnt from Iraq, but fundamentally her politics will be the same.
Barrack represents a radical innovation away from traditional political dogma through his desire to do the job differently. His willingness to engage with Iran if elected is testament to this.
People are fearful of change. People voting for Hillary Clinton will be voting for the politics of fear.
Barrack Obama represents voters wishes for a step change in the way America handles itself at home and abroad, a desire to be better than that, and the politics of hope.
Being totally sincere, if I was a US citizen, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. But then five years ago, I would have voted in favour of the Iraq war.
James, London, UK
Is it really a "prejudice" or an "irrational dislike" to hold contempt for people who post fantastically reactionary and offensive comments on blogs under the cowardly cover of pseudonymity or anonymity? I would have thought that it was a perfectly rational and reasonable response to their own obviously cowardly and offensive behaviour.
BTW do you have an opinion about these new words that I coined a while back?
ostrichize and ostrichization
A Google search makes it clear that I am not alone in coming up with that witticism although it is far from well known or put to good use yet. . . Needless to say these two new words synthesize that classic icon of willful ignorance, the ostrich with its head in the sand, with the practice of ostracism. At least that is how I use these new words.
Robin Edgar, Montreal, Canada
Sir,
You missed the worst of all: 'cull' for 'kill'.
Joyce Affleck, Gloucestershire
Joyce Affleck, Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
My most-hated phrase is "sit down" which means, I think, "talk about" or "discuss". "Shall we sit down today?" - erm, I think so, our legs would be pretty sore if we don't - or, even worse, "we'll be sitting down about that later". And don't get me started on "literally"...
Jill, London, London, UK
Surely the most intentionally confusing adjective used in marketing is to call something 'Premium' as if, because is shares a few similar letters, it might be confused with 'Premiere'
Selling a huge tub of Premium Ice cream* (insert any consumer product here) should be re-labeled 'Bog-Standard"
Similarly the 'Special Bus Service' that runs during railway engineering works, has nothing 'special' about it.
Rob, Bromley, Kent
I know exactly what you mean. I "have an issue" with people who "have issues" (as opposed, presumably, to "having problems". I don't know how or where that particular phrase originated, but every time I hear it uttered it effects me as though fingernails were scraping against a blackboard. The misuse of the word "disrespect" as a verb (as in "so-and-so disrespected so-and-so") is another malaprop that immediately causes my gorge to rise.
Robert Guttman, New York, U.S.A.
My PC does - Blue Screen Of Death (BSOD) and a message saying that it has had a critical error. I'm sure it was built be Steve Jobs as an Apple propaganda piece.
Thom Hutchins, University of Warwick, UK
Love your article, I too hate cheese with fruit and raddichio and many of your other "prejudices". I agree with you about all these new words/expressions - how about "thinking outside the box" and "pushing the envelope" - they make me cringe; I hate them and they don't even make sense! Other words that drive me mad are things like a "ball-park" figure - would it really be so crude to say "roughly"?! And "associates" instead of customers! A spade is a spade! well, it should be. Bring back the plain English campaign I say!! And I'm a Scot!!!
Jenny Duthie, Aire sur la Lys, France
Great idea to bring up the corruption of the English language.
How about the calling of food "Organic" as if it is some how different from any other food which is also,surprise,surprise,! "Organic" since Organic simply means anything which is or has been alive and has organs.
seems to me that anything with a posh word in front of it means cost more! e.g. delicatessen,espresso or latte etc.automaticallly increases the price to double or tripple that of just coffee. I am sure there are many more.
Perhaps we could have weekly,"spot the corrupted word"contests. Should be interesting.
Brian, Gosport, Great Britain
All I know is that my Mac doesn't burst into tears every time something goes slightly awry. So I'm backing Obama.
Jamie, Glagow,